Mrs Maria Yorke v GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited — 2019

The majority accepted that the claimant had rheumatoid arthritis, was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that the respondent knew of the disability. It found that the respondent had followed occupational health advice on phased returns and light duties, had encouraged the claimant to self-restrict tasks within her limitations, and had explored redeployment, including through management enquiries and a formal 12-week redeployment process. It did not find that the respondent had failed to redeploy her permanently in accordance with clear occupational health advice, or that alleged walking-stick related treatment occurred.

On discrimination arising from disability, the majority found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment caused by the claimant's disability-related absence. It nevertheless held that the respondent had shown justification: maintaining consistent attendance was a legitimate aim and dismissal was proportionate in light of the claimant's absence history, medical evidence, failed returns to work, adjustments made, and lack of suitable alternative role.

On reasonable adjustments, the majority found that requiring a certain attendance level before sanctions could be imposed was a PCP that put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It held that removing sanctions or disregarding disability-related absence entirely was not a reasonable step, and that trigger points under the attendance policy had in fact been disapplied. The majority also recorded several adjustments made, including phased returns, reduced duties, self-restriction, lifting assistance, and non-physical tasks.

On unfair dismissal, the majority found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was not capable of performing her role, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out reasonable investigation and consultation through occupational health referrals, medical evidence, informal and formal meetings, and an appeal. A minority member disagreed, but the majority judgment dismissed all claims.